News

A-10: Been There, Considered That

—John A. Tirpak4/24/2014

AFA Caption

BodyText

If
the Air Force kept the 42 A-10s it has already re-winged and got rid of the
rest, it would only save $1 billion versus the $4.2 billion saved by taking
down the whole fleet, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Wednesday. Speaking
at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Welsh said it’s the
infrastructure that “drives the big cost,” so keeping a few is quite expensive.
If USAF doesn’t get permission to cut all the A-10s, he said the other “horrible”
options include cutting another 363 F-16s (14 squadrons' worth), reducing the
F-15E fleet, or eliminating the B-1 fleet. Doing so would make it “impossible”
to win “a big conflict,” he asserted. USAF saves “big lives on the ground” by
providing air superiority—allowing freedom to maneuver and attack—and through
striking follow-on forces and command and control. The combination saves far
more lives than close air support, he said, and the aircraft retained can also
do CAS, as proved over “thousands and thousands” of sorties. The A-10 retirement
plan is “not emotional, it’s logical,” and has been vetted through all the
Pentagon models used to plan wars. Retiring the A-10, “very clearly, ... (was)
the least impactful” move affecting the
ability to fight a major war, Welsh insisted. Ten years from now, the A-10
“will not be part of that solution” to winning a high-end fight, he said.